Crash Analysis

[Richie]

Mike. i have sanitised my prior post.


I shall have to read the book ! I had always thought that it was the practice by Donald's team to refuel between runs, but as they say you learn something new every day that's the beauty of a forum and a discussion such as this can run its course for all to learn.

if only bluebird had canard's back in the day perhaps this could have helped prevent the flip occurring but that is a whole other discussion (what could have been changed to make her better at that time)

Steve i think you may have miss read my post i was referring to you as F1 as I was being lazy.... rather than suggesting that F1 reconstructions were guesswork which as we know they are not.

[Mike Bull]

Cheers Richie. No harm done, though it's worth remembering that this forum is open for everyone to read, which includes sponsors, the Campbell family, the media, Type II and Type III idiots, and so on.

Getting back on topic and regarding the duck damage-

b771.jpg

- I took a look at the surviving parts associated with the forward spar fairings today and was immediately struck by something- that dent would have been a lot shallower than the photo above would have you believe, because the 'D' shaped formers that attach to the front face of the spar to carry the fairing profile are really quite shallow. I'll not go giving measurements away, but it was quite striking.

[Richie]

Mike I know the answer to this one........ was the duck frozen ? that is some intrusion for a bird strike.

[Mike Bull]

Coniston in January? Of course the duck was frozen!

[ted.walsh]

if only bluebird had canard's back in the day perhaps this could have helped prevent the flip occurring but that is a whole other discussion (what could have been changed to make her better at that time)

umm
just to point out a couple of things there, 1, current US 'unlimited' hydroplane racers have foot operated canards as 'standard' but it doesnt stop them from blowing over, in fact they tend to make it more likely. and 2, under UIM official rules aerodynmic controls (moving bits in the air) are forbidden and would of invalidated DC's attempt.....gotta remember its a boat not a plane..

[Richie]

there we go then Ted this is where your expertise comes good yet again i was thinking along the lines of anhedral canards as you say controlled by feet on the nose may have helped keep it down / level but then again i am a mere pleb not an engineer. The whole thing for me further compounds how much respect Donald deserves and to have been still pushing the boundaries well into his 40's.........what a guy !

[Renegadenemo]

I'm at the AAIB next month and there's lots of very clever people down there who know all about accidents. I'll offer up the currently available evidence and see what shakes loose.

[f1steveuk]

Steve i think you may have miss read my post i was referring to you as F1 as I was being lazy.... rather than suggesting that F1 reconstructions were guesswork which as we know they are not.

I may well have done Richie! I KNOW I am lazy, just can't speak for those I worked with under Mr Ecclestone!

As for Canards, well Ken would never have thought of them, they weren't in the rules, but as Ken Warby proved, with a bit of lateral thinking you CAN fit a wing. One assumes, technically, K7 with a Gnat tailfin may have been outside the reg's, but niether this, nor Ken Warby's tailplane were moveable, and as I illustrated in Leap', Ken had toyed with a fin on the back in 1954 ( ? I really must geta copy of this! Was it 54?).

[Mike Bull]

I'm interested to know exactly what Ken Norris thought about the duck dent- anyone? Steve?

[f1steveuk]

I could only speculate at his "exact" thoughts, so I wont, but while working together he was of much the same opinion as me, everything has an effect, and contributes, it is just a matter of determining by how much.